CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 février 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 72 February 2005 Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania - 46626/99 Judgment 3.2.2005 [Section III] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Refusal to register political party respecting fundamental democratic principles: violation   Facts : The application was lodged by a political group named Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) (Party of Communists who have not been members of the Romanian Communist Party – “the PCN”), and by its chairman. In 1996 the courts refused to register the PCN as a political party, having regard to its constitution and political programme. They considered that the PCN was seeking to establish a humane, democratic society founded on communist doctrine and that this implied that it regarded the constitutional and legal order that had been in place since 1989 as inhumane and undemocratic. The PCN had not been politically active before applying for registration. Law : Article 11 – The interference entailed by the refusal to enter the PCN in the special register for political parties had been “prescribed by law” and had pursued the aims of protecting national security and the rights and freedoms of others. An assessment of whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society should focus on the PCN’s political programme and constitution since they had formed the basis for the national courts’ decisions. The courts had found against the applicants on the ground that the PCN’s aims did not uphold national sovereignty and, in particular, that the means proposed for achieving them were incompatible with the constitutional and legal order in place in Romania. The Court observed that the PCN’s constitution and political programme stressed the importance of upholding the country’s national sovereignty, territorial integrity and legal and constitutional order, and of the principles of democracy, and did not contain any passages that might be considered a call for the use of violence, an uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles, or for the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The PCN’s programme and constitution had distanced themselves from the former Communist Party’s abuses and had criticised the policy pursued since 1989. In a democracy there could be no justification for hindering a political group that complied with fundamental democratic principles solely because it had criticised the country’s constitutional and legal order and had sought a public debate in the political arena. The domestic courts had not demonstrated any way in which the PCN’s programme and constitution were contrary to the country’s constitutional and legal order and, in particular, to the fundamental principles of democracy. It was not acceptable for a Contracting State to refuse to allow a democratic debate on the emergence of a new communist party. Admittedly, it was necessary to verify that a party’s political programme did not conceal objectives and intentions different from the ones it proclaimed, but that should be done by comparing the content of the programme with the actions of the party’s members and leaders and the positions they defended. However, the PCN had not even had time to take any practical action as its prior application for registration had been refused. Although Romania had indeed had experience of totalitarian communism prior to 1989, that consideration could not by itself justify the need for the interference, especially as communist parties adhering to Marxist ideology existed in a number of countries that were signatories to the Convention. Since the courts had failed to establish that the applicants’ political programme was incompatible with a “democratic society”, let alone that there was evidence of a sufficiently imminent risk to democracy, the refusal to register the PCN as a political party, before its activities had even started, had not met a “pressing social need” and was disproportionate to the aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction and made an award for costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes